S.N.Pathak, J.

1. The aforesaid revision and writ petition have been heard analogous because they arise out of the same judgment dated 23rd January 1999, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar, in S. T. No. 421 of 1996. The informant Shambhu Nath Pandey of the case is the revisionist and the Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Pramod Kumar Jha is the writ-petitioner.

2. On the fardbeyan of the revisionist, Shambhu Nath Pandey, a case was registered at the Dandkhora P.S. and the investigation was taken up by P. K. Jha and whereafter on submission of charge-sheet etc., the accused persons of the case, who are opposite party nos. 2 to 10. were tried and acquitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar.

3. Initially, the case of the prosecution which originated on the fardbeyan of the revisionist was that on 2nd July, 1996 at 7.30 P. M., the informant (P.W.10) and his brother-in-law (Bahnol) (P.W.5) were sitting in the court yard of the informants house and were taking light refreshment sitting on a cot. The informants sister, Pushpa Pandey, younger sister Neelam and his mother were also sitting. The informants father was sitting on a chair at the main door and he was also taking refreshment. Suddenly, 4-5 persons rushed to the courtyard of the informant and fired at him and at his Bahnoi. Later, they also fired at his mother and father who succumbed to the injuries while being carried to the Hospital. The informant and his Bahnoi were also carried to the Sadar Hospital, Katihar, where the informants fardbeyan was recorded where he named one llyas and Razzaq as the main assailants on the deceased and upon himself and his brother-in-law (Bahnoi).

4. So according to the fardbeyan of the informant, llyas and Razzaq were the two named accused. However, the informants re-examination by the I.O., gave a twist to the prosecution case, so far the assailants were concerned and altogether different accused persons were named in his statement and the investigation proceeded on the lines of re-statement of the informant. One Jay Prakash Sharma and Raj Kumar Sharma were named as the main assailants in the re-statement of the informant. So thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the accused opposite party and Md. Ilyas and Razzaq were not sent up for trial. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution, including P.W.10 the informant and some neighbours, including several villagers, all made statements to the I.O. implicating Jay Prakash Sharma and Raj Kumar Sharma and others. Witnesses were also examined under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and they named only Jay Prakash and Raj Kumar and others, but none of the witnesses named Razzaq and Ilyas before the I.O. The motive for the alleged occurrence, as per the fardbeyan of the informant, was that the informants father had agreed to sell certain lands to Ilyas and Razzaq and some advances were also made and the informants father insisted for payment of full consideration money which was not paid and Md. Ilyas and Razzaq, in turn, insisted for execution of the sale-deed and there was noncompliance of their request, by the informants father, for which the alleged occurrence took place. The motive as supplied in the restatement of the informant was that during the election, there was some kind of row with the informants family and Jay Prakash and Raj Kumar and so for taking revenge, these two persons perpetrated the alleged crime along with their associates. The learned Sessions Judge, taking notice of complete somersault of the initial case and the complete departure of the same in restatement of the informant, held that the I.O., had misdirected himself by delaying the re-statement of the informant almost for 38 hours deliberately and intentionally, when he had good opportunity to take his restatement already armed with the fardbeyan of the informant in the F.I.R. So the learned trial court disbelieved the story of the alleged occurrence as developed by the inform